Truth Magazine

By Milburn Cockrell, Editor The Berea Baptist Banner

I continue to be elated at the progress we are making in this debate. Mr. Donahue has not denied thus far that before Mark 16:16 people were saved by repentance and faith, as the Bible teaches and Baptists believe. He did mention “preparatory teaching,” but none of the verses he cited was any to which I had referred. In his second speech he also conceded that an erring Christian who loses his salvation regains it by repentance and faith. Thus to a very large degree he has come around to my position. But as to the initial salvation experience from Mark 16:16 to now he continues to hold to his “be dipped or damned” theory, a theory not taught in the Bible, but in The Christian System written by Alexander Campbell. I commend him for the concessions he has thus made. His honesty is commend-able.

He complains that I did not respond to his arguments, but I did. He failed to try to explain any of my verses, save Luke 7:48,50. He only went off on synecdoches. He did not respond to my proof texts because he knows the verses I cited plainly teach salvation at the point of faith. He says he agrees with me that faith saves, but then he says the believer is still a child of the Devil! Any person knows a child of the Devil is not saved! In his last speech he failed to tell us more about the grotesque creature who is still a Christian but “separated from God” and “fallen from grace.” He did not say a word about Papa Campbell’s words on Acts 22:16, nor a word about 1 Corinthians 1:14-17; 4:15. He did not examine any of the verses in my arguments 8 to 14 in his last speech. “Physician, heal thyself ” (Luke 4:23). Maybe I should call him Mr. Dodge instead of Mr. Donahue.

He is hung up on a synecdoche. He tries to make me say repentance and faith are not necessary to salvation, yet he knows that I do not believe such foolishness. His synecdoche argument is essentially this: If something is mentioned after something elsesuch as baptism after faith  then it proves that whatever is said to happen cannot occur until the last thing mentioned. This is his rule, not mine. But let me use his rule on his own arguments about baptismal regeneration. In Matthew 10:22 Christ said: “But he that endureth to the end shall be saved.” Here salvation is said to come after perseverance to the end of natural life. Endurance comes after baptism. Hence, according to Mr. Donahue’s rule, a man is saved at death, a very long time after his baptism. His logic has now proved that a man is not saved at the point of baptism. Remember that he said: “…because salvation is predicated upon a condition doesn’t mean salvation happens at the point of that condition being met.”

In truth Mr. Donahue does not believe that a man is saved at the point of baptism. He believes that he may be saved, provided he can outrun the Devil from the creek to Heaven. He believes that a man can be saved by baptismal regeneration, then go and join a Baptist church, and end up in Hell. If he joined a Catholic or Protestant church, which teaches baptismal regeneration, he can still get to Heaven second class. In his view there is hope for all Christendom, except the Baptists!

I continue to be amazed at his proof of baptismal regeneration in the O.T. He believes that the flood waters saved Noah. The Bible teaches that the ark saved Noah and the waters of the flood destroyed the ungodly. Then he goes off on the walls of Jericho that fell down after the Israelites marched around the city seven days. Mr. Donahue, they fell down by faith, not baptism. Nobody was baptized at Jericho. Most of the people in the city were not saved. They perished in the battle. My friend tries to get his doctrine from inferences about the flood, the walls of Jericho, and some statement of Paul in 1 Corinthians 1. He seems to be hard pressed for plain scriptures.

Upward of 100 verses in the New Testament condition salvation on faith in Jesus Christ. 1 John 5:1 says: “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” Notice that it said the believer “is” (not going to be) born of God. Mr. Donahue does not believe this verse. He thinks the believer is still a child of the Devil. According to him, a person can repent, believe, hear, confess, but these things are not sufficient. Such a person is still a child of the Devil. Mr. Donahue ignores the many verses which say that faith causes a person to be saved  the person is saved the moment he believes. He goes to about six verses (Mk. 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:27; 1 Pet. 3:21) and in these he thinks the word “saved” means what it says. He believes that in more than 100 verses “saved” does not mean “saved,” but in the six he cites “saved” means “saved”! Such reasoning is about as logical as putting a screen door in a submarine!

He ignores my verses, but I will consider his, such as Mark 16:16. The verse teaches that men are damned for want of faith, not baptism. Belief is the key here, not baptism. I might also say: “He that believeth and takes the Lord’s supper shall be saved.” We might add any duty required of a Christian. Unbelief is the cause of condemnation (John 3:18). When a person ceases to be an unbeliever, he is not condemned.

1 Peter 3:21. He ignores the word “figure.” Baptism is a figure or picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, the means of our salvation. Mr. Donahue does not know the difference between a picture and the real thing.

1 Corinthians 1:12-13. There is nothing in the words of Paul here about salvation. Paul did not baptize in his own name; he baptized in the name of Christ. Note that verse 14 says: “I thank God that! baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius.” Mr. Donahue would never had said such, for he would be thanking God that he saved so few.

Acts 2:38. “For the remission of sins” means “with reference to the remission of sins already obtained” one is baptized. The Greek eis does not mean “in order to.” In Matthew 12:41: “They repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonas,” not in order to obtain his preaching.

Look carefully at Mr. Donahue’s statement: “Anybody not baptized `for the remission of sins’ will be lost.” This is the same thing that the pope of Rome believes. Pope Paul said on February 6, 1974, to a general audience: “The real birthday of a Christian is the day of his baptism” (1975 Catholic Almanac 62).

For the first 4,000 years of human history baptismal regeneration was not known among the fellowship of God’s children. The error originated among the Devil worshippers of Chaldea many centuries before Christ. Alexander Hislop relates of the priests of Babylon: “They led their votaries to believe that, if they only passed through the baptismal waters, and the penances therewith connected, that of itself would make them. . . twice born or regenerate. . . and give them the new birth” (The Two Babylons 137). This idea passed through false Judaism into the church at Pergamos and finally into the Mother of Harlots, the Roman Catholic Church. Mr. Donahue and his people got this dogma from one of the daughters of the Whore. It came from the Presbyterians by means of Alexander Campbell into the Restoration Movement.

I charge this hoary, old, bewhiskered patriarch (baptismal regeneration) with being not a patriarch of Scripture at all, but just an ignoble old Chaldean vagabond. I charge baptismal regeneration with being the most destructive heresy that ever raised its Hydra-head out of the pit of Hell. It was not planned in the councils of God from eternity. It was instigated in the councils of Hell, the Devil being the father thereof, and the Whore by Babylon the Great being the mother thereof. This accursed lie has dragged millions down to Hell by deceiving them as to the new birth.

Thank you, Mr. Donahue, for answering my third question in my last speech so as to show that Baptists are different from Catholics and Protestants. As I have just pointed out, Mr. Donahue and his people are like Catholics, Protestants, and pagans, for they all believe in human works for salvation. We believe in salvation by free grace  even repentance and faith are gifts of God’s grace. Grace, the free grace of God, does all the work of salvation. It works in the sinner all his good will and all his good works, so that the sinner shall go at last into the divine presence as a poor, helpless beggar, saved by grace from first to last, and be prepared to give God all the glory of his salvation.

Evils of Baptismal Regeneration

1. It makes the preacher who baptizes a person his savior. If Mr. Donahue’s position is correct, Jesus Christ never saved one soul. John 4:2 says: “Jesus baptized not, but his disciples.”

2. The “be dipped or damned” idea is out of character with the spiritual religion which Christ came to teach. If salvation was in ceremony, then the ordinances of Judaism were just as good. 1 Peter 3:21 declares that baptism does not put away the filth of the flesh.

3. Some persons received the Spirit before baptism (Acts 10:44-48). The receiving of the Spirit presupposes regeneration and furnishes evidence of it. Hence they were said to justify baptism.

4. Baptism is described by Peter as “the answer of a good conscience” (1 Pet. 3:21), but a good conscience is the fruit of regeneration (Heb. 9:14) and is joined to faith (1 Tim. 1:5,19; 3:9).

5. In the First Epistle of John he uses the word “begat” one time and “begotten” three times, yet he never mentions baptism in the whole book! This is strange if a person is regenerated by baptism as Mr. Donahue says. Unlike him, John saw no connection between baptism and regeneration.

6. Is a man led to baptism by the Spirit of God, or the spirit of the Devil? If he is led by the devil, we must praise the Devil for his work of evangelism. If he is led by the Spirit of God, then he is saved before baptism, for “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:14).

Answers to Mr. Donahue’s Questions

1. Repentance and faith occur very much at the same time, and so salvation may be predicated upon either. There is a time lapse between faith and baptism.

2. The answer to his second question is “No!”

3. No. The grammar is plain, for it shows the baptized ones in verse 27 were the ones already saved by faith. The antecedent of the personal pronoun “you” in verse 27 is “the children of God” in verse 26.

Mr. Donahue, give up the dogma of baptismal regeneration which is from Babylon and Rome. Trust in a whole Christ for the whole of your salvation.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 24-25
March 3, 1994

By Jimmy Tuten

“The Wicked Husbandmen” is the name given to a parable that is recorded in Matthew 21:33-44. The key to understanding it is found in verses 45-46, “And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.” The wicked populace of Jesus’ day had already rejected the teaching of John the baptizer. Their past actions are exposed in the Lord’s previous parable (vv. 28-32). In this one Jesus makes known the present and future actions of these people relative to their plan to kill Jesus (vv. 37-39).

The “householder” is God; the “vineyard is the nation of Israel; the “husbandmen” are the Jewish leaders; the “servants” are the prophets who have been sent to the nation of Israel, and the “Son” is Christ. While the interpretation of the parable is not our main concern in this writing, the practical application of it to our day is of great importance. What relevancy does the parable have for the people of God in the 1990s?

The Grace of God

The people of God in the Old Testament had previously been compared to a vineyard (Ps. 80; Isa. 5:1,7). A great deal has been said about the measures taken for their separation and protection (Matt. 21:33; Isa. 5:2,5). In the preparation of the vineyard there were three areas clearly marked out: (1) A householder planted a vineyard and furnished it with all appliances needful for the intended production. A hedge is placed around it to keep wild animals out, a vat is dug out of the rock in which to press out the juice of the grape and a tower is erected for the watchmen to prevent intrusion. The tower also served as a storage place and a point of protection for the workmen. (2) The vineyard is planted, fenced, guarded, tilled and furnished. It is then handed over to the husbandmen. (3) Having commissioned and installed the husbandman, the owner goes into another country. Clearly then, the vine-yard was the area of God’s gracious privilege, the realm of service of all. Specifically, the Jews had become the husbandmen 1500 years previously. God made wise provision for them and guided them in the production of fruit unto him. What more could he have done for his people?

Is God’s grace any different today? “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men” (Tit. 2:11). The motivation for this gift of grace was the “the kindness and love of God our Savior” (Tit. 3: 4), “by grace ye are saved” (Eph. 2:5). In addition to this there is gracious condition in which men may stand (Rom. 5:1-2). God’s people are admonished to “stand” in the “true grace of God” (1 Pet. 5:12). God has bestowed graceupon men of our age.

Freedom of Action

Just as the landowner made the needed provision for the vineyard and left its care to the vine growers, so God gave Israel the law (Rom. 3:1-2). On this hinged two great commandments:love God with all thy heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourselves (Matt. 5:43-44). They were given the freedom of will to serve him and to produce fruit. There was no compulsion on God’s part except that of love and gratitude (1 Jn. 4:10-11,19).

There is a divine and human side of salvation (Eph. 2:8). God is the provider and man responds in obedience (Heb. 5:8-9). Since man’s response is in the form of obedience to the conditions of God’s grace, his salvation is not based on works of merit (Tit. 3:4-7). However, man must “work out” his own salvation (Phil. 2:12), yet so as not to boast of having earned anything (Tit. 2:11-12). Just as the Jews were responsible for their service to God, so it is with his people today. Jude says, “keep yourselves in the love of God” (Jude 20-21). “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God” (Lk. 9:62). Our attitude should be that of a willingness to serve, yet, “.. . when ye have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do” (Lk. 17:10).

Reponsibility

Though the owner of the vineyard was absent as far as conspicuous oversight and retribution were concerned, there was nonetheless the responsibility of fulfilling the owner’s expectations of finding fruit (Matt. 21:34; Isa. 5:2-4). The idea of leasing (“let it out”) was common in Bible times. But with this leasing there was the entrustment and commitment to the charge of paying a portion to the owner. Those in charge had a responsiiblity that had to be fulfilled. In God’s purpose for redemption this involved the responsibility to propagate the kingdom of God. Since the responsibility of the Jews was rejected by them, the charge was taken from them and given to the Gentiles (Matt. 21:43-44).

God’s people today have the obligation to fearfully reverence God and keep his commandments (Eccl. 12:13-14). We are expected to spread the borders of the kingdom (Matt. 28), produce fruit thereof (Gal. 5:22-23) and prove what is acceptable to God (Eph. 5:9-10). God will bring all men into account in the day of judgment (2 Cor. 5:10-11). “For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be bad” (Eccl. 12:14).

The refusal of those in charge of the vineyard to pay their dues is manifested by subsequent ill-treatment in various ways. They go to extreme lengths several times over to reject those commissioned to ask for the fruits due the owner. These servants were beaten and killed by the vine growers (Matt. 21:35). Other servants that were sent were treated the same way (v. 36). The longsuffering and merciful vineyard owner then sent his son, thinking they would respect him (v. 37). But these vineyard laborers, with their robber-like conspiracy, plotted against the son and heir of the vineyard in order that they might become the owners (v. 38). Thus the murderous sequel took place when the son of the owner was sent with the belief that his action would encourage a proper response. They cast him out of the vineyard and killed him (v. 39). The slain servants represent the prophets who had pleaded for obedient trust in God and for fruits thereof of due him. From Matthew 23:37 it can seen that there was uniform hositlity to the prophets. This display in-creased with indulgence. The more God pleaded with them, the more self-conscious and bitter becomes their hatred. As the antagonism increased so was the beseeching appeal on the part of God. The continuous rebellion on the part of the nation of Jews caused them to stand with frowning hatred before the Son of God as he spoke. This treatment of Jesus was the living em-bodied of the spirit which had animated their forefathers. The fountain of wisdom and love was poured out for all mankind, but it was a fatal issue for them (Matt. 21:37-39). No more patience would be accorded them. The cup of guilt was filled to the brim. They would be cast forth and punished! The rebellious Jews had dashed themelves to pieces on the stone sent with irresistible impetus from the throne of God as a final interposition in their favor (“but last of all . . .” cf. I Pet. 2:4,6-8). The acceptance or rejection of Christ is the determining fctor in human history. They chose to crucify the Son of God, who after his resurrection was made both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). The fear of the loss of ruling power became the motivating force among the Chief Priests and Pharisees. But they lost their control over the Law and the conduct of the people when the kingdom was taken exclusively from them and given to the Gentiles (Matt. 21:45-46; Acts 13:46-49; 15:13-18).

The Punishment of the Jewish Nation

There were three aspects of the punishment inflicted upon the Jews: (1) The first was national, in that the kingdom of God was taken from them and given to another nation which would bring proper fruit. Because the Jews had rejected God’s mercy they would be “broken in pieces.” There would be scattered like chaff, that is, the nation would go into dispersion. This new nation included

Jews and Gentiles alike and it was not of this world. This nation is made of all the nations saved. It is the church, the kingdom of God (Col. 1:13). It does not have earthly origin. Since it is not the same nature as the Jewish nation according to the flesh, it does not have similar functions to that of civil government On. 18:36; 2 Cor. 13:3-5; 1 Pet. 2:9). It is spiritual in nature.

Just as the wicked (represented by the Jewish nation) are destroyed in the parable, so the Jewish nation (fleshly Israel) was brought to an inglorious end. The last remnant thereof was rejected. They lost their privileges and were broken. The prophecies of the destruction, which began to be executed at the cross of Jesus, took place under the leadership of Titus in 70 A.D. (2) When the fall of Jerusalem took place under the leadership of Titus in 70 A.D., the second aspect of the threefold punishment. Such is the punishment of anyone who stumbles over the Stone and who doubt the truth of Jesus being the Son of God. To these the “living Stone” becomes a rock of offense (1 Pet. 2:4,8). Though these are lost in sin, some of them later believed to the saving of their souls (Acts 2:36-41). (3) The third punishment has to do with the fact that he upon whom the stones falls will be ground to dust and blown as chaff in the wind. This applied to the Chief Priests, Pharisees and Sadducees who had the Lord cruficied and who continued in their rebellion. When Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. some of them died and some were sold in slavery. This was their punishment for their hardened, impenitent conduct in rejecting salvation. “Grind them” is an expression of terrible vengeance and destruction that left national Israel without hope of recovery (Dan. 2:34-35,44-45). Christ in his humility is the stone against which wicked men fall. Christ in his glory and exaltation is the stone which falls on them. The cross of Christ thereafter became unto the Jews a stumblingblock and to the Gentiles foolishness (1 Cor. 1:23).

Conclusion

Those who oppose Christ today are slain and buried by what should be their joy. Their dwelling and refuge becomes their tomb. God’s great purpose of redemption for those who believe and destruction in an eternal hell for unbelievers will continue to be fulfilled. So if one attempts to work out by his own means an eternal success with the Lord, his action would be as foolish as standing in the path of avalanche of stone in order to stem it. “How shall we escape is we neglect so great a salvation?” (Heb. 2:3) “He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:8-9).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 8-9
March 17, 1994

By Bob Dickey

The greatest peril of modem man is his rejection of absolute authority. The rejection of authority, and the failure to respect it, is the primary cause for the problems being experienced in our homes, schools, and in our nation. In the spiritual realm, it is the source of disaster for multitudes.

For most professed religionists, everything is relative today. There seems to be few absolutes, no right and wrong, no black or white  everything has run together until it has become a dull gray. Everyone wants to be his own director. Each wants to elevate his own opinion to be the supreme court. All want to be their own boss. Surely, the words of Judges 17:6 have a familiar ring, “. . . every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” But every generation that has tried that has gone down in moral disgrace.

What we need is a recognition of absolute authority. To that end the Apostle Paul wrote, “… let God be found true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). This instruction, when humbly received and obeyed, could bring reason to the moral insanity that is all around us today. We need to see three important truths inherent in this statement:

1. Let God Be Absolute Authority

Look at the simple clarity and force with which the writer stated it: “let God be true”! One would think this would be the normal thing for all to do  especially those who are claiming to love the Lord. But there is much evidence that few will let him be that for their lives. We know that the Lord is true. He is the embodiment of all truth (John 14:6). The Bible tells us that God cannot lie (Num. 23:19; Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:18; 2 Tim. 2:10-13). In spite of this, there are few who will”let God be true” or the absolute authority over their wills.

The great civil war that has raged since the sin of Adam is the struggle between the authority of God and the will of man. So many today are impressed with their own ability to reason things out. It has become evident that the majority of people will follow their own reasoning in whatever they do. Then, when the Word of God goes against their reasoning, they allow their own will to be absolute authority. They may very well hold God to be an authority figure, but they alone will command their own lives. It is high time we learned not to make God an authority; he must be the authority. Let God be absolute authority!

2. Let Man Be Absolute Vanity

Look at the text again: “… let God be found true, but every man a liar.” The Amplified New Testament makes it more emphatic: “. . . let God be found true, though every human being be false and a liar.” Our lives often say, “Let every man be true (especially ourselves), and God a liar.” Secular humanism deifies man. Moral choices are made on the basis of a modem situation ethics. Even in the Lord’s church we are divided over an institutionalized course of pragmatism, and brethren have defied God’s Word by allowing so-called expediency to override authority.

Most cannot bring themselves to see that anyone and everyone is wrong who goes contrary to the word of God. Now be certain you see that includes you, your loved ones, your friends, teachers, and preachers. “Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity” (Ps. 62:9). We must all say with Jeremiah, “0 Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). As right as it may seem, the way of man’s going ends in death (Prov. 14:12; Rom. 6:23; Jas. 1:13-15). Let us remember that wrong is wrong  even if everyone is doing it, and right is right  even if no one is doing it. Let man be absolute vanity!

3. Prove Your Loyalty To God By Your Obedience

When we “let God be true” and recognize his absolute authority, we will demonstrate our loyalty by our obedience to his word. He has placed a high premium on obedience: “. . . Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry” (1 Sam. 15:22-23). Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matt. 16:24). “If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). Then, and only then, are we allowing God to be absolute authority. Only then can we be truly blessed. cr

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 6
March 17, 1994

By Larry Ray Hafley

The chart on the next page illustrates a complaint that frequently is heard.

Who is guilty of calling names? “Well, old brother So & So calls names.” You have just named someone who calls names. Does this make you a “name caller”?

What is meant by the charge that “preachers call names”? (1) Do preachers call people ugly, dirty names? Do they refer to other folks as “dirty, rotten blankety blanks”? If so, they should be opposed. There is no place for childish name calling  “Johnny is a big, fat slob!” “Catholics are a bunch of mealy-mouthed minnow munchers.” That sort of thing does not belong in the life of a Christian, let alone in preaching! Who does such a thing? If you find someone, we will join you in reprimanding him.

Suppose an example of such improper name calling is found. Is it typical? Does it occur during most sermons? No, it is an isolated event. It rarely occurs, and when it does, it is not condoned. So, why the charge? Why bring it up as a general criticism if it is not generally practiced?

(2) When it is said that “preachers call names,” do you mean by this that they name and identify the what and the who about which they are speaking? Define the complaint. When you say that someone is a “name caller,” you have called him a name, i.e., “name caller.” “Thou that sayest a man should not call names, dost thou call men `name callers’?”

Notorious New Testament Name Callers

Jesus was perhaps the “worst” name caller who ever lived! “Woe unto you, scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites!” “Ye make him twofold more the child of hell than your-selves.” “Ye blind guides.” “Ye fools and blind.” “Ye blind guides which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” “Thou blind Pharisee.” “Woe unto you, scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like unto whited sepulchres which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but are within full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.” “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers.”

If a preacher today referred to religious people as “blind guides,” “hypocrites,” “children of hell,” and as “snakes” and a “generation of vipers,” he would be told that he lacks “the spirit of Christ.” Would Jesus be allowed to preach where you worship if he called names as he did in Matthew 23? When Jesus referred to “Gentiles,” he was identifying his subject in order to emphasize his point (Matt. 6:32). Ifone speaks of the second coming of Christ, he might say, “For after all these things do the premillenialists seek.” Or he might say that, “like the Methodists, Baptists seek for salvation by faith only.” Does the preacher sin by labeling and identifying the group he is talking about? If so, did Jesus (Matt. 6:32; 21:31)?

In Mark 7:6-13, Jesus (1) called his audience “hypocrites,” (2) said their worship was “in vain,” (3) charged them with rejecting “the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” Then, (4) he specifically described and defined their particular doctrine and (5) rebuked it. Is this an example of good, sound gospel preaching? May a preacher today refer to (1) “Baptists” and (2) say their worship of God is in vain because (3) they reject the commandments of God that they may keep their own traditions? Then, would it be proper to take a (4) specific doctrine, such as, “faith only” and show how it contradicts Mark 16:16, and (5) rebuke it as a human tradition that makes void the word of God? Would such a sermon lack love? Would it be “filled with hateful `name calling’?” May we do what Jesus did in the way that he did it (1 Cor. 11:1; 1 Pet. 2:21; 4:11; 1 Jn. 2:6)? Please tell us!

If we may do what the Lord did in the way he did it, why the charge that the Church of Christ is wrong because it calls names? Either withdraw the charge, or else tell us that we may not follow the Lord’s example in preaching. Which shall it be?

Paul was another first rate “name caller.” He named “Hymanaeus and Alexander” as being examples of those who had “made shipwreck” of their faith (1 Tim. 1:19,20). Would it be proper today to say that Darwin Chandler “made shipwreck” of his faith when he joined the Pentecostals? (In the 1980s, Darwin Chandler, who was then preaching for the House St. church in Alvin, Texas, departed the faith and started preaching for the Pentecostals.) Assuming it to be true, would it be sinful to say it? Paul said, “For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world” (2 Tim. 4:10). “Alexander the coppersmith (not the blacksmith, the tinsmith, the silversmith or the goldsmith, but the coppersmith  LRH) did me much evil” (2 Tim. 4:14). “Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.” Would it be scriptural to tell someone today that there is a certain ironworker in a certain church that will oppose you when you teach the truth about the church and recreation? May we do as Paul did (Phil. 4:9)? May we speak as he spoke (1 Pet. 4:11)?

Note the case, the example, of 2 Timothy 2:16-18. “But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as cloth a canker: of whom is Hymanaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.”

First, Paul characterized the doctrine in very harsh terms, comparing it to “profane and vain babblings.” Second, he noted its threefold effects: (A) “increase unto more ungodliness,” (B) “eat as doth a canker (gangrene),” (C) “overthrow the faith of some.” Third, he identified the proponents of the doctrine; he called their names,”Hymanaeus and Philetus.” Fourth, he defined the doctrine, “saying that the resurrection is past already.” Did Paul sin? Should he be ridiculed and reviled as a “name caller”?

May a preacher today do as Paul did? Can we obey 1 Timothy 5:20, “Them that sin rebuke before all that others also may fear”? May one say that brother Guy N. Woods’ views on benevolent societies and the sponsoring church, as exemplified by the “Herald Of Truth,” are “profane and vain babblings” that have led to “more ungodliness” (church gyms, camps, etc.). May I say that his teaching has eaten as a cancerous gangrene in the body of Christ and has overthrown the faith of some? Should one refrain from such characterizations in order to avoid being called “a name caller,” or should he do as Paul did?

May a preacher say that brother Charles Holt’s views on the church and elders in the local church are “profane and vain babblings” that will “increase unto more ungodliness,” “eat as doth a canker” and “overthrow the faith of some”? If one does so, is he guilty of sin, assuming that he correctly represents brother Holt’s false doctrines? Strangely, those who refer to gospel preachers as “name callers” never seem to apply the same criticism to brother Holt when he calls gospel preachers “hirelings” and charges them with preaching for money! Critics jump on men who properly identify and rebuke brother Holt’s doctrine, but they never reprove brother Holt when he says that women may be “elders” and that “elders” are power hungry autocrats. Now, we are getting to the heart of our critics’ goals. They love the darkness of error more than the light of truth. That is the basis of their complaints On. 3:19-21).

May a preacher do as Paul did regarding brother Homer Hailey’s views on divorce and remarriage? May we say, with all kindness and respect, that brother Hailey’s views, if followed, will lead to “more ungodliness,” leaving some in an adulterous marriage? May one say that the toleration of adulterous marriage will “eat as doth a canker” and “overthrow the faith of some”? If we may not speak in such a manner regarding brother Hailey’s doctrine, why is it right to do so concerning Guy N. Woods, Charles Holt, Hymanaeus and Philetus? Brethren, these questions can-not be answered with your best grin. They demand an answer. (Or will you simply call me a name for having raised the questions?)

“Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:9-13).

Paul cited a religious party, “the circumcision.” May we cite a religious party, “the premillennialists”? Observe the “name calling” that Paul engaged in! He accepted the verdict of uninspired men regarding the character of “the Cretans”; hence, an uninspired man may make such judgments. I believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses are “unruly and vain talkers and deceivers.” May I cite their doctrines and “rebuke them sharply”? May I say that Mormons “subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not”? May I say that the convicted and imprisoned preacher, Jim Bakker, preached “for filthy lucre’s sake,” for money, and that he “with feigned words (made) merchandise” of millions of people? If I do so, am I a sinful “name caller”? May elders in the church today do as Paul instructed the elders to do in Titus 1:9-13?

If “name calling” is one of the things that “is wrong with the Church of Christ,” then the “wrong” has been around for a long time. “0 full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord” (Acts 13:10). Do such folks exist today. Ben M. Bogard, a Missionary Baptist preacher, was such a man. Marvin Hicks of the United Pentecostal Church is such a man. Oral Roberts is such a man. But our critics will not challenge the evil and wickedness of those men. No, they would rather criticize those who expose the deceit of such men.

The apostle John named and identified Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9,10). “Yes, Larry, but John was an inspired man. He knew Diotrephes’ character (“loveth to have the preeminence”), but you don’t possess John’s insight.” Where is the proof that John revealed Diotrephes’ character by divine insight? If so, the error is not in the “name calling,” but in the fact that one is not inspired when he does so. (Remember, though, Paul’s acceptance of the “names” that uninspired men “called”Titus 1:12, 13).

John said, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar” (1 Jn. 2:4). Imagine that! John used the word “liar.” Did he sin? “No, Larry, John did not sin; he wrote as the Spirit directed, but you cannot do that.” (1) Is it possible for an uninspired man to know if a man claims that he knows God? Yes, I can know when one claims that he knows God. (2) Is it possible for an uninspired man to know whether or not one keeps God’s commandments? Yes, I can know whether or not one keeps “his commandments.” Since I, an uninspired man, can know that one claims to know God, and since I can know whether or not he is keeping God’s commandments, I can know whether or not one is a “liar.”

In debate with Pentecostal preachers, I have had three of them claim that they were apostles. Raymond Cochran claimed that he was an apostle as Paul and Peter were. He said he did not know who the other eleven were. I told Mr. Cochran that I believed he was indeed an apostle, and that he was mentioned in the Bible  “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:13-15). Did I do wrong? Am I sinning by naming the man and his claim in this article? If not, then why charge that “the Church of Christ is wrong because they call names”? The church at Ephesus was commended thusly, “Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars” (Rev. 2:2).

The Pope of Rome claims to be an apostle. Mormons say they have twelve apostles. Mr. Cochran said he was an apostle. May we try or test such men and their claims? If they fail the test of Scripture, is it proper to say that we have “found them liars”? I asked Mr. Cochran if he could do “the signs of an apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12). He could not! The Pope, the Mormon apostles and Mr. Cochran are “liars.” If that is “name calling,” then I plead guilty.

Here is what puzzles me. Gospel preachers are attacked and condemned “for calling names.” What do our critics say about Mr. Cochran or the Pope? Do they protest against their claims? Do they teach against the Pope’s usurpation of the apostleship? Why is it that gospel preachers are the “bad guys” when they teach and tell the truth, but the Pope and Mr. Cochran are to receive our sympathy and love? “What is wrong with this picture?” The truth is that there are those who love darkness rather than light. That is why they criticize gospel preachers for doing their duty and apologize to false teachers who are doing the devil’s work. While none of us desires to be unnecessarily abusive and offensive, there are others who are unwittingly deluded by these false teachers who have adopted their maxims.

Elijah’s Sarcastic Mocking

The prophets of Baal were to have their god answer them. They “called on the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, 0 Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. And it came to pass that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awakened” (1 Kgs. 18:26, 27).

Did Elijah sin? We know that the wicked king Ahab said that Elijah was the one “that troubleth Israel” (1 Kgs. 18:17). In our day, those who challenge the modern prophets of Baal are regarded as those “that troubleth Israel.” It was not so then, and it is not so today! The Ahabs of our day want to throw up a smokescreen to hide their altars that burn with the fires of error and iniquity. They will seek to intimidate by saying that we are hateful, mean spirited “name callers.” Listen, and you will hear the “names” that they call all of us who “call names.” Those who are opposed to “name calling” do it with a vengeance against those they judge to be guilty of it. They call our names, and the call us names for calling the names of false teachers and false doctrines. That is more than a bit ironic!

Chart:

Whats Wrong with the Church of Christ?

“Preachers Calling Names”

 

1. Name One! (When you do, are you a “Name-Caller”??

 

 

1. Notorious N. T. Name Callers

 

 

1. Jesus: Mt. 23; 21:31; 6:32 (Gentiles = Baptists) Mk. 7:6-13, Lk. 13:32 (“Fox”) Rev 2:6, 15, 20

 

 

1. Paul: 1 Tim. 1:19, 20; 2 Tim. 2:16-18; 2 Tim. 4:10, 14; Titus 1:9-13; Acts 19:24; 17:23

 

 

1. John: 1 Jn. 2:4; 3 Jn. 9

 

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 10-13
March 17, 1994